Opinion

The Oracle: Disputes Between States and the Federation: Examining the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Pt. 3)

Published

12 months ago

October 7, 2023

Eric

By Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

In our last discourse on this series, we delved deeper into the constitution of the apex court (Supreme Court) with regards to its membership and how it affects its jurisdiction. We also x-rayed how the subject matter of a case determines a court’s jurisdiction and the conditions precedent to assumption of jurisdiction by a court. Today, we shall continue and conclude on the apex court’s power of jurisdiction and thereafter take a look at the definition of a federation; The Federation” Vs “Federal Government of Nigeria”: The Link and the Principles for the Invocation of the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Please read on.

“Dispute” For The Purpose Of Invoking the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Continues)

In A.G. OF THE FEDERATION V. A.G, OF ABIA STATE & 35 ORS, (2001) 11 N.W.L.R. (PL. 725) pg. 689 at 737 the word ‘dispute’ was defined by my Lord S.M.A. Belgore, J.S.C., C.J.N. (as he then was), as follows: “To my mind, a dispute involves acts of argument, controversy, debate, claims as to rights, whether in law or fact, varying opinions, whether passive or violent or any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet. I will not close the category of disputes.” Suit No. S.C. 27/2010: (2011) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1248) 31 at 166-167. A dispute is a conflict of claims or rights or demands on one side met by contrary allegations on the other side.

In A.G ABIA v. A.G FEDERATION, Suit No. SC. 73/2006: (2007) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1029) 200 at 219-220. Tabai, J.S.C. held thus: “With respect to the construction given to the word “dispute”, the opinion of the Court (Per Belgore, J.S.C. as he then was) is quite apposite in determining the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction in this case. On page 701 he said of “dispute” thus: ‘…A dispute is a dispute whether apparent or lingering. It is remarkable that in the counter-claims to the suit some States have admitted there is a dispute. This Court in Attorney- General of Bendel State V. Attorney-General of The Federation; (1981) 10 S.C. 1; (1982) 3 N.C.L.R. 1 Attorney-General of The Federation V. Attorney-General of Imo State, (1983) 4 N.C.L.R. 178 set out clearly what is a dispute to the extent of using authoritative English dictionary. To my mind, a dispute involves acts of arguments, controversy, debate, and claims as to rights whether in law or fact, varying opinions, whether passive or violent or any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet.’”

The same Belgore, J.S.C. (as he then was) had earlier in A.G, OF THE FEDERATION v. A.G OF ABIA STATE, & 35 ORS (2001) 11 N.W.L.R. (PL. 725) 689 at 737, held, inter alia, that the term dispute as used in section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution “…Involves acts of arguments, controversy, debate, claims as to rights whether in law or fact, varying opinions, whether passive or violent or any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet.”

In his view, C.J.N. (rtd.) in the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ABIA STATE & 35 Ors Ibid, at pp 728-729, adumbrated as follows:
“What constitutes a dispute under Section 212 subsection (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, which has exactly the same provisions as Section 232 subsection (1) in question had been considered by this Court in the cases of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & 22 ORS, (1982) 3 N.C.L.R. 1, and A.G OF THE FEDERATION V. A.-G OF IMO STATE & 2 ORS. (1983) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 239; (1983) 4 N.C.L.R. 178. In ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE’S case, Bello, J.S.C., (as he then was), stated as follows on pp. 48 to 49 thereof:- “To invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court there must be a dispute as so qualified between the Federation and a State or between States. The issue of jurisdiction was contested on three grounds Firstly, there is no dispute which affected the interest of the Federation and Bendel State between the plaintiff (Bendel State) and the Federation, Secondly, I think the first point may be easily disposed of from the definition of the word “dispute, The Oxford Universal Dictionary defines it as ‘the act of arguing against, controversy, debate, contention as to rights, claims and the like or on a matter of opinion… I also held as follows on p. 320 thereof. It is a well-established principle of the interpretation of the Constitution that the words of a Constitution are not to be read with stultifying narrowness- UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, and NAFIA RABIU V KANO STATE (1980) 8-11 S.C. 130 at pp. 148-149. The word ‘dispute in section 212(1) should therefore be given such meaning that will effectuate rather than defeat the purpose of that section on the Constitution. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 2nd Edition, provides that “dispute is synonymous with controversy, quarrel, argument, disagreement and contention.”

Disputes Between States And The Federation: The Legal Position
Section 232 (1) of the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between States and the Federation. In order to appreciate this provision, it is expedient to examine what a Federation means.

“Federation”- Meaning

In A.G LAGOS STATE v. AG FEDERATION & ORS, 2014) LPELR-22701(SC), at pp 129-130, Pars A-A. Per KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC on the definition of “Federation”, held thus:
“Section 318 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) defines “Federation” as follows: “Federation means the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” In A.G. Kano State vs A.G. Federation, Ibid this Court per Mahmud Mohammed, JSC, relying on the definition of “Federation” within the meaning of Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution, which bears the same meaning in Section 212 of the 1979 Constitution, differentiated between Federation (or the Federal Republic of Nigeria) and the Federal Government thus: Section 212 of the 1979 Constitution under which the word “Federation” was defined is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution now under consideration. I therefore respectfully adopt the definition of the word “Federation” in Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution as bearing the same meaning as the ‘Federal Republic of Nigeria.’ By this meaning…all the complaints of the plaintiff in its statement of claim in the present case must be viewed as being against the Federal Republic of Nigeria in order to bring the case within the purview of Section 232 of the Constitution. In other words, any complaint against the Government of the Federation or any person who exercises power or authority on its behalf like the Inspector General of Police as asserted by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff in his address before this Court, is completely outside the original jurisdiction of this Court.”

“The Federation” Vs “Federal Government of Nigeria”: The Link

For a better understanding of the meaning of the word “Federation”, the Supreme Court, per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC, only recently emphasized the distinction between the “Federal Government of Nigeria” and the “Federation” in A.G OF KADUNA STATE & ORS v. A.G OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2023) LPELR-59936(SC); at Pp 22 – 24 Paras F – C., thus:
“So much heavy weather is made about the distinction between the Federation and the Government of Nigeria that exercises its executive powers. That distinction no doubt has a constitutional basis. But since the Government of the Federation exercises the executive powers of the Federation, there is, legally and practically speaking, hardly a dividing line between the acts of the Government of the Federation and the acts of the Federation. The distinction does not exist to the extent of turning the Government of the Federation into a sovereign that can act without regard to the Federation. The Government of the Federation is not sovereign. It is a creation of the Constitution for the purpose of exercising the executive powers of the Federation. The Federation is inherently the sovereign and its sovereignty is further established by S.2(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that- (1) Nigeria shall be one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2) Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The sovereignty enjoyed by the Federation is owned by several individual persons constituting the people of the Federation of Nigeria who own the lands that together form the territory of Nigeria. S. 14(2) of the 1999 Constitution acknowledges this ownership by declaring that- (a) Sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority. (b) The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of the government, and (c) The participation by the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.”

The implication of the above decisions is that, for the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction, it must be a dispute between the Federation and a State or between States.

Principles For The Invocation Of The Jurisdiction Of The Supreme Court
Many actions between states and the Federation have failed as a result of the failure to appreciate the thin line that grounds the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court laid this confusion to rest in the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION, (2007) LPELR-24343(SC) where, per, WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JSC, held at pages 95 – 97, Paras F – C), that:
“The Constitution is very clear on when the Supreme Court will invoke its original jurisdiction on a matter. Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution provides: “232(1) the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. (To be continued).

Thought For The Week

“Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever”. (William Howard Taft).

Opinion

The End of a Political Party

Published

7 hours ago

September 16, 2024

Eric

By Obianuju Kanu-Ogoko

It is deeply alarming and shameful to witness an elected official of an opposition party openly calling for the continuation of President Tinubu’s administration. This blatant betrayal goes against the very essence of democratic opposition and makes a mockery of the values the PDP is supposed to stand for.

Even more concerning is the deafening silence from North Central leadership. This silence comes at a price—For the funneled $3 million to buy off the courts for one of their Leaders’, the NC has compromised integrity, ensuring that any potential challenge is conveniently quashed. Such actions reveal a deeply compromised leadership, one that no longer stands for the people but for personal gain.

When a member of a political party publicly supports the ruling party, it raises the critical question: Who is truly standing for the PDP? When a Minister publicly insulted PDP and said that he is standing with the President, and you did nothing; why won’t others blatantly insult the party? Only under the Watch of this NWC has PDP been so ridiculed to the gutters. Where is the opposition we so desperately need in this time of political crisis? It is a betrayal of trust, of principles and of the party’s very foundation.

The leadership of this party has failed woefully. You have turned the PDP into a laughing stock, a hollow shell of what it once was. No political party with any credibility or integrity will even consider aligning or merging with the PDP at this rate. The decay runs deep and the shame is monumental.

WHAT A DISGRACE!

Opinion

Day Dele Momodu Made Me Live Above My Means

Published

2 weeks ago

September 1, 2024

Eric

By Uzor Maxim Uzoatu

These are dangerous days of gross shamelessness in totalitarian Nigeria.
Pathetic flaunting of clannish power is all the rage, and a good number of supposedly modern-day Nigerians have thrown their brains into the primordial ring.

One pathetic character came to me the other day stressing that the only way I can prove to him that I am not an ethnic bigot is to write an article attacking Dele Momodu!

I could not make any head or tail of the bloke’s proposition because I did not understand how ethnic bigotry can come up in an issue concerning Dele Momodu and my poor self.

The dotty guy made the further elaboration that I stand accused of turning into a “philosopher of the right” instead of supporting the government of the day which belongs to the left!

A toast to Karl Marx in presidential jet and presidential yacht!

I nearly expired with laughter as I remembered how one fat kept man who spells his surname as “San” (for Senior Advocate of Nigeria – SAN) wrote a wretched piece on me as an ethnic bigot and compelled one boozy rascal that dubiously studied law in my time at Great Ife to put it on my Facebook wall!

The excited tribesmen of Nigerian democracy and their giddy slaves have been greased to use attack as the first aspect of defence by calling all dissenting voices “ethnic bigots” as balm on their rotted consciences.

The bloke urging me to attack Dele Momodu was saddened when he learnt that I regarded the Ovation publisher as “my brother”!

Even amid the strange doings in Nigeria of the moment I can still count on some famous brothers who have not denied me such as Senator Babafemi Ojudu who privileged me to read his soon-to-be-published memoir as a fellow Guerrilla Journalist, and the lionized actor Richard Mofe-Damijo (RMD) who while on a recent film project in faraway Canada made my professor cousin over there to know that “Uzor is my brother!”

It is now incumbent on me to tell the world of the day that Dele Momodu made me live above my means.

All the court jesters, toadies, fawners, bootlickers and ill-assorted jobbers and hirelings put together can never be renewed with enough palliatives to countermand my respect for Dele Momodu who once told our friend in London who was boasting that he was chased out of Nigeria by General Babangida because of his activism: “Babangida did not chase you out of Nigeria. You found love with an oyinbo woman and followed her to London. Leave Babangida out of the matter!”

Dele Momodu takes his writing seriously, and does let me have a look at his manuscripts – even the one written on his presidential campaign by his campaign manager.

Unlike most Nigerians who are given to half measures, Dele Momodu writes so well and insists on having different fresh eyes to look at his works.

It was a sunny day in Lagos that I got a call from the Ovation publisher that I should stand by to do some work on a biography he was about to publish.

He warned me that I have only one day to do the work, and I replied him that I was raring to go because I love impossible challenges.

The manuscript of the biography hit my email in fast seconds, and before I could say Bob Dee a fat alert burst my spare bank account!

Being a ragged-trousered philanthropist, a la the title of Robert Tressel’s proletarian novel, I protested to Dele that it’s only beer money I needed but, kind and ever rendering soul that he is, he would not hear of it.

I went to Lagos Country Club, Ikeja and sacked my young brother, Vitus Akudinobi, from his office in the club so that I can concentrate fully on the work.

Many phone calls came my way, and I told my friends to go to my divine watering-hole to wait for me there and eat and drink all that they wanted because “money is not my problem!”

More calls came from my guys and their groupies asking for all makes of booze, isiewu, nkwobi and the assorted lots, and I asked them to continue to have a ball in my absence, that I would join them later to pick up the bill!

The many friends of the poor poet were astonished at the new-fangled wealth and confidence of the new member of the idle rich class!

It was a beautiful read that Dele Momodu had on offer, and by late evening I had read the entire book, and done some minor editing here and there.

It was then up to me to conclude the task by doing routine editing – or adding “style” as Tom Sawyer would tell his buddy Huckleberry Finn in the eponymous adventure books of Mark Twain.

I chose the style option, and I was indeed in my elements, enjoying all aspects of the book until it was getting to ten in the night, and my partying friends were frantically calling for my appearance.

I was totally satisfied with my effort such that I felt proud pressing the “Send” button on my laptop for onward transmission to Dele Momodu’s email.

I then rushed to the restaurant where my friends were waiting for me, and I had hardly settled down when one of Dele’s assistants called to say that there were some issues with the script I sent!

I had to perforce reopen up my computer in the bar, and I could not immediately fathom which of the saved copies happened to be the real deal.

One then remembered that there were tell-tale signs when the computer kept warning that I was putting too much on the clipboard or whatever.

It’s such a downer that after feeling so high that one had done the best possible work only to be left with the words of James Hadley Chase in The Sucker Punch: “It’s only when a guy gets full of confidence that he’s wide open for the sucker punch.”
Lesson learnt: keep it simple – even if you have been made to live above your means by Dele Momodu!

To end, how can a wannabe state agent and government apologist, a hired askari, hope to get me to write an article against a brother who has done me no harm whatsoever? Mba!

I admire Dele Momodu immensely for his courage of conviction to tell truth to power.

Opinion

PDP at 26, A Time for Reflection not Celebration

Published

2 weeks ago

September 1, 2024

Eric

By Obianuju Kanu-Ogoko

At 26 years, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) should have been a pillar of strength, a beacon of hope and a testament to the enduring promise of democracy in Nigeria.*

Yet, as we stand at this milestone, it is clear that we have little, if anything, to celebrate. Instead, this anniversary marks a sobering moment of reflection, a time to confront the hard truths that have plagued our journey and to acknowledge the gap between our potential and our reality.

Twenty-six years should have seen us mature into a force for good, a party that consistently upholds the values of integrity, unity and progress for all Nigerians.

But the reality is far from this ideal. Instead of celebrating, we must face the uncomfortable truth: *at 26, the PDP has failed to live up to the promise that once inspired millions.*

We cannot celebrate when our internal divisions have weakened our ability to lead. We cannot celebrate when the very principles that should guide us: justice, fairness and accountability,have been sidelined in favor of personal ambition and short-term gains. We cannot celebrate when the Nigerian people, who once looked to the PDP for leadership, now question our relevance and our commitment to their welfare.

This is not a time for self-congratulation. It is a time for deep introspection and honest assessment. What have we truly achieved? Where did we go wrong? And most importantly, how do we rebuild the trust that has been lost? These are the questions we must ask ourselves, not just as a party, but as individuals who believe in the ideals that the PDP was founded upon.

At 26, we should be at the height of our powers, but instead, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The path forward is not easy, but it is necessary. We must return to our roots, to the values that once made the PDP a symbol of hope and possibility. We must rebuild from within, embracing transparency, unity and a renewed commitment to serving the people of Nigeria.

There is no celebration today, only the recognition that we have a long road ahead. But if we use this moment wisely, if we truly learn from our past mistakes, there is still hope for a future where the PDP can once again stand tall, not just in name, but in action and impact. The journey begins now, not with *fanfare but with resolve.